HempMy Pet™ Blog

Due to the myriad of laws concerning cannabis, there is little
empirical research regarding the veterinary use of cannabidiol (CBD).
This study used the Veterinary Information Network (VIN) to gauge US
veterinarians’ knowledge level, views and experiences related to the use
of cannabinoids in the medical treatment of dogs. Participants (n
= 2130) completed an anonymous, online survey. Results were analyzed
based on legal status of recreational marijuana in the participants’
state of practice, and year of graduation from veterinary school.
Participants felt comfortable in their knowledge of the differences
between Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and marijuana, as well as the
toxic effects of marijuana in dogs. Most veterinarians (61.5%) felt
comfortable discussing the use of CBD with their colleagues, but only
45.5% felt comfortable discussing this topic with clients. No
differences were found based on state of practice, but recent graduates
were less comfortable discussing the topic. Veterinarians and clients in
states with legalized recreational marijuana were more likely to talk
about the use of CBD products to treat canine ailments than those in
other states. Overall, CBD was most frequently discussed as a potential
treatment for pain management, anxiety and seizures. Veterinarians
practicing in states with legalized recreational marijuana were more
likely to advise their clients and recommend the use of CBD, while there
was no difference in the likelihood of prescribing CBD products. Recent
veterinary graduates were less likely to recommend or prescribe CBD.
The most commonly used CBD formulations were oil/extract and edibles.
These were most helpful in providing analgesia for chronic and acute
pain, relieving anxiety and decreasing seizure frequency/severity. The
most commonly reported side-effect was sedation. Participants felt their
state veterinary associations and veterinary boards did not provide
sufficient guidance for them to practice within applicable laws. Recent
graduates and those practicing in states with legalized recreational
marijuana were more likely to agree that research regarding the use of
CBD in dogs is needed. These same groups also felt that marijuana and
CBD should not remain classified as Schedule I drugs. Most participants
agreed that both marijuana and CBD products offer benefits for humans
and expressed support for use of CBD products for animals.

Introduction

Cannabis is one of the earliest cultivated crops, grown in Taiwan for fiber starting about 10,000 years ago (1).
The Emperor Shen-Nung, a pharmacologist, wrote a book on treatment
methods in 2737 BCE that included the medical benefits of cannabis and
recommended it for many ailments, including constipation, gout,
rheumatism, and absent-mindedness (2).
Cannabis plants can be genetically classified as either hemp or
marijuana, based on the concentration of (-)-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC), and other cannabinoids they contain (3).
Marijuana typically refers to plants with high concentrations of THC,
the psychotropic drug used for medicinal or recreational purposes. In
contrast, hemp is typically cultivated for use in personal care
products, nutritional supplements, and fabrics. It contains higher
amounts of CBD, which does not have psychotropic properties. The rules
and regulations for CBD and marijuana are different with each having
separate statutory definitions.

Recently, the US senate debated the legalization of
industrial hemp, with the introduction of the Hemp Farming Act of 2018,
aimed at lifting the ban on hemp as an agricultural commodity.
Incorporated into the larger 2018 Farm Bill the hemp farming act was
passed. The Hemp Farming Act provides for the removal of industrial hemp
from Schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act (CSA). This removal
would explicitly legalize the cultivation, processing and sale of all
hemp-derived products, including CBD (4).
The final stages of this legalization process are yet to develop. In
September, 2018 the U.S. Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement
Agency announced that Epidiolex (newly approved CBD containing
anti-seizure medication) was placed in Schedule V. The DEA signaled that
this approval only applied to Epidiolex and not all CBD products (5).

As such, the legal status of CBD remains confusing.
According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, Schedule V drugs, substances,
or chemicals are defined as drugs with lower potential for abuse than
Schedule IV and consist of preparations containing limited quantities of
certain narcotics. Schedule V drugs are generally used for
antidiarrheal, antitussive, and analgesic purposes (6).

The confusion around legal status of cannabis has made
it challenging to study its effects, yet the demand for recreational and
medical cannabis continues to grow. Sales of legal recreational and
medical cannabis in the United States in 2017 resulted in $5.8–$6.6
billion revenue, and by 2022, legal cannabis revenue in the U.S. market
is projected to reach $23.4 billion (7).

Against this backdrop, research remains minimal. Those
wishing to study the effects of cannabis or cannabinoids must navigate a
challenging process that may involve the National Institute on Drug
Abuse, Food and Drug Administration, Drug Enforcement Administration,
offices or departments in their state’s government, state boards, their
home institution, and potential funders (8).
There have been a handful of controlled clinical trials conducted with
cannabinoids, reporting positive effects on pain, nausea, vomiting,
inflammation, cancer, asthma, glaucoma, spinal cord injury, epilepsy,
hypertension, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s
disease, or loss of appetite (9–11).
In late June 2018, the FDA approved Epidiolex, the nation’s first drug
derived from marijuana, for the treatment of seizures associated with
two rare and severe forms of epilepsy in humans (12).

Research on animals is equally challenging, with few
researchers studying cannabis in animal patients without explicit FDA
and DEA approval, but in a manner they contend complies with federal and
state law. A researcher from Colorado State University recently
reported findings from a small pilot study involving 16 dogs. She found
that 89 percent of epileptic dogs had fewer seizures when taking the
chicken-flavored CBD oil, as compared to about 20 percent that had were
on a placebo (13).
Another project, conducted at Cornell University, included a
randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover study that
appeared to show that dogs treated with CBD oil have a clinically
significant reduction in pain and an increase in activity (14).
Given its growing popularity, it is important to assess small animal
veterinary practitioners’ experiences with CBD products for dogs. This
current study was designed to gauge US veterinarians’ knowledge level,
views and experiences related to use of cannabinoids in the
medical treatment of dogs. This study was not designed to study
perceptions, views, or experiences related to the use of marijuana
products with high levels of THC in dogs. The authors’ perception is
that there is much more interest in the public for using CBD products in
dogs, possibly due to concerns over THC toxicity.

Method

An anonymous online survey was created, in collaboration
with VIN (Veterinary Information Network–an online veterinary
community), to evaluate veterinarians’ views regarding marijuana and
CBD/hemp products. The survey was created and tested for usability by
researchers at Colorado State University. After the survey was created,
one of the authors of this paper (MR) set up online distribution and
arranged for a small sample of VIN members to pilot test the survey for
appropriate branching and question flow, ambiguity, and potentially
missing or inappropriate response options. Their feedback was analyzed,
and incorporated into the final version of the survey. A link to the
survey was distributed via an email invitation to all VIN members (n~34,000),
and access was made available from April 27, 2018- May 16, 2018. A
follow-up message was sent 2 weeks after the initial invitation. Only
data from respondents who stated they currently treat dogs in clinical
practice were included in the study. The study was categorized as exempt
by Colorado State University’s Institutional Review Board. Because this
was an anonymous survey, written informed consent was not required. An
introductory statement explained the study and indicated to potential
participants that consent was implied by completing the survey.

The survey was administered directly via the VIN data
collection portal, and branching logic was used to display only
questions relevant to each participant. The first question was a
screening tool to ensure respondents were clinical veterinarians
practicing in the US. Veterinarians who self-identified as not in a US
clinical practice (n = 26) or did not treat dogs (n = 52)
were eliminated from further analysis. The body of the survey consisted
primarily of short questions, for which participants were able to select
one or more specific options to represent their experiences and
perceptions regarding hemp/CBD products. Free-text boxes were provided
for participants to enter brief alternative answers when none of the
listed options applied to them. A final question at the end of the
survey allowed for free-text entry of any comments participants chose to
make about hemp/CBD products.

Results

A total of 2,208 responses were received, 78 of which
were eliminated as per above, leaving a sample size of 2,130. Not all
survey questions received responses; therefore, the number responding to
that particular question is indicated for each question in the text and
tables. Respondents practicing in each state in the US participated,
with the largest percentages coming from California (341, 16%), Texas
(142, 6.7%), Florida (113, 5.3%), New York (96, 4.5%), and Colorado (92,
4.3%). The number of respondents who work in a state in which
recreational marijuana was legal at the time of the survey (AK, CA, CO,
DC, ME, MA, NV, OR, VM, WA) was 759 (35.6%) leaving 1,371 respondents
(64.4%) working in states that had not legalized recreational marijuana
as of May, 2018. Respondents were asked to indicate the year in which
they graduated veterinary school. The graduation years were classified
into four cohorts: 1989 or earlier (448, 21.1%), 1990–1999 (473, 22.3%),
2000–2009 (606, 28.6%), and 2010 or later (595, 28.0%).

Knowledge Questions

Respondents were asked to indicate their knowledge level,
using a 4 point Likert scale from 1 = “have no idea” to 4 = “know a
lot,” in response to questions about marijuana and/or CBD products. The
first question enquired about their knowledge level regarding the
differences between marijuana and CBD products (n = 2,108). The
largest number (1,207, 57.3%) reported “know some” followed by “know a
lot” (426, 20.2%). When asked about the toxic effects of marijuana in
dogs (n = 2,123), the majority reported “knowing some” (1,147,
54.0%), followed by “know a lot” (824, 38.8%). Respondents were less
knowledgeable about the therapeutic effects of CBD products in dogs (n
= 2,126); 930 (43.7%) reported “knowing some” and 745 (35.0%) reported
“not knowing much.” Similarly, they were less knowledgeable about the
toxic effects of CBD products in dogs (n = 2,126), in which 637 (30.0%) reported “knowing some” and 930 (43.7%) reported “not knowing much.” (Table 1).
TABLE 1

The respondents were asked next how comfortable they feel talking to veterinary colleagues about CBD treatment for dogs (n
= 2,127). Most felt comfortable (1,309, 61.5%), with 231 (10.9%)
reporting feeling uncomfortable, 432 (20.3%) neutral, and 155 (7.3%)
indicating they have not encountered the situation. When asked about
their comfort level talking with clients, they were less comfortable:
967 (45.4%) reported feeling comfortable and 641 (29.9%) felt
uncomfortable, 443 (20.8%) neutral, and 85 (4.0%) indicated they have
not encountered the situation. A chi square test was used to assess
differences in comfort level based on graduation year and legal status
of recreational marijuana in the respondents’ state of residence. For
these analyses, those who had not encountered the situation were
removed. No differences were found based on legal status of marijuana in
state of practice, but differences were found based on graduation date.
Recent veterinary graduates were less comfortable talking to colleagues
(chi square 29.71, p < 0.001) as well as clients (chi square 69.22, p < 0.001) (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1

Figure 1. Participants’ reported level of comfort in discussing CBD/hemp with colleagues (A) and with clients (B), based on year of graduation from veterinary school.

Frequency of CBD-Related Consultations

Veterinarians (n = 2,112) were asked how often
their clients enquired about CBD products and the most common response
was rarely (616, 29.2%), followed by weekly (609, 28.8%), monthly (558,
26.4%), never (172, 8.1%), and daily (157, 7.4%). These responses were
significantly different based on respondents’ states’ marijuana laws
(Table 2).
Clients visiting veterinarians who work in states that have legalized
recreational marijuana were more likely ask about CBD for their pets
(chi square 358.90, p < 0.001).
TABLE 2

Table 2. Reported frequency of clients seeking
information about CBD for pets, based on legal status of recreational
marijuana in state of practice.

Participants (n = 2,128)
were also asked to quantify how often they initiate discussions with
clients about CBD products. The majority reported never (1,398, 65.7%),
followed by rarely (413, 19.4%), weekly (140, 6.6%), monthly (132,
6.2%), and daily (45, 2.1%).

Conditions for Which CBD Was Discussed

Respondents who reported client-initiated conversations about CBD products (n
= 1,940) were next asked to identify the specific conditions or
diseases for which clients were seeking information. More than one
response was possible, and the most common topics were pain management,
anxiety, seizures, and storm/fireworks phobias. Respondents (n =
730) who reported initiating conversations with clients about CBD
products were also asked to identify the specific conditions or diseases
for which CBD products were discussed. Multiple selections were
possible, and the most commonly discussed topics were pain management,
anxiety, seizures, and storm/fireworks phobias (Table 3).
TABLE 3

Table 3. Common diseases/conditions for which clients sought information and for which veterinarians initiated conversations about CBD.

Client Communication Regarding CBD

In order to gauge the degree with which veterinarians
endorse the use of CBD products, participants were asked to quantify the
frequency with which they advise clients about CBD products, recommend
CBD products, or prescribe CBD products. These results were then
analyzed based on the legal status of recreational marijuana in
respondents’ state of practice (Figure 2).
FIGURE 2

Figure 2. Reported frequency of advising about,
recommending, and prescribing CBD products, based on the legal status of
recreational marijuana in participants’ state of practice (A,C,E) and participants’ year of graduation (B,D,F).

Advising clients about CBD products (n
= 2,125) was considered the lowest level of endorsement. The largest
number of participants reported never (938, 44.1%) or rarely (615,
28.9%) advising their clients about CBD products. A smaller number
reported sometimes (401, 18.9%), or frequently (171, 8.0%). When asked
for all the reasons why they did not advise clients about CBD products (n
= 938), the most common answer was that they don’t feel knowledgeable
enough (639, 68.1%), followed by the field needs more research (560,
59.57%), it is illegal (458, 48.8%), concerns about toxicity (185,
19.7%) and do not think clients would be receptive (35, 3.7%). “Other”
reasons included concerns about product consistency and purity or the
fact that they had not been asked.

Recommending CBD products constituted the next level of
endorsement. Participants were asked how often they recommend CBD
products (n = 2,124). The majority reported never (1,409, 66.3%)
or rarely (346, 16.3%). A minority reported sometimes (260, 12.2%), or
frequently (109, 5.1%). When asked for all the reasons why they did not
recommend CBD products (n = 1,409), the most common answer was
that the field needs more research (912, 64.7%), followed by not feeling
knowledgeable enough (888, 63.0%), it is illegal (751, 53.3%), concerns
about toxicity (301, 21.4%) and do not think clients would be receptive
(45, 3.2%). The most common “Other” reasons included concerns about
product consistency and purity and the feeling that other options with
better research exist.

Lastly, participating veterinarians were asked how often they prescribe CBD products (n
= 2,130). The majority reported never (1,735, 82.1%) or rarely (187,
8.8%). A minority reported sometimes (125, 5.9%), or frequently (67,
3.2%). When asked for all the reasons why they did not prescribe CBD
products (n = 1,735), the most common answer was that it is
illegal (1,003, 57.8%), followed by the field needs more research (997,
57.5%), don’t feel knowledgeable enough (967, 55.7%), concerns about
toxicity (325, 18.7%), and do not think clients would be receptive (49,
2.8%). “Other” reasons included the fact that it can be bought over the
counter and the lack of product consistency and purity.

Clinical Experience With CBD Products

Participants were asked if they have had any clinical
experience with CBD products in dogs. This could include direct
observation or client reports (n = 2,130). Slightly more than
half reported yes (1,194, 56.1%) and 936 (43.9%) said no. Participants
who indicated they had clinical experience with CBD were asked a series
of questions related to their experience with specific forms of CBD as
well as perceived benefits and side effects. The forms of CBD that
participants were asked about included biscuits or edibles, tablets or
capsules, CBD oil or extracts or tinctures, and oil or cream for topical
application. Among these, participants reported the most familiarity
with liquid (oil extracts or tinctures) and edible (biscuits/edibles)
formulations of CBD (Table 4).
TABLE 4

Table 4. Veterinarians’ clinical experience with CBD products in dog.

Several potential uses of CBD products
were listed and participants were asked to indicate if, in their
observations or client reports, CBD products had had a harmful effect,
no effect or positive/helpful on each of them. Those who responded NA
(not observed/not applicable) were removed from analysis. The areas in
which veterinarians reported observing (either first-hand or via client
reports) the most positive effects included: analgesia for chronic and
acute pain, anxiety, and seizure frequency or severity (Table 5).
TABLE 5

Participants were also asked about
witnessed or reported side effects, with the most common side effect
being sedation. This was reported by 28.9% of participants to occur in
1–10% of dogs. The percent of participants who reported sedation as a
side effect in 11–25% of dogs was 12.5%. The next most common side
effect was polyphagia, reported by 10.0% of participants to occur in
1–10% of dogs. With the exception of sedation, all other potential side
effects were reported by over 80% of participants as never occurring
(Table 6).
TABLE 6

Table 6. Perceived side effects of CBD products for common canine medical conditions.

Legal/Ethical Issues and Research Regarding CBD/Marijuana

The last series of questions asked participants about
their views on a variety of topics related to CBD and marijuana. Two of
these questions referred to guidance on the topic offered through state
organizations. For both veterinary state organizations and state
veterinary boards, few participants reported feeling that these entities
provided sufficient guidance regarding the use of CBD/marijuana in
animals for them to practice within the state or federal law. These
questions pertaining to veterinary state organizations and state
veterinary boards were analyzed to determine if there were any
significant differences in responses based on year of graduation or the
legal status of recreational marijuana in the state in which
respondents’ practice veterinary medicine. A significant difference
based on year of graduation was found for participants’ views of the
guidance offered by their veterinary state organization (chi square
30.18, p = 0.011), whereby those who graduated more recently
report higher agreement levels. Similarly, those practicing in states
with legal recreational marijuana reported higher agreement with the
statement that their veterinary state organization provides sufficient
guidance (chi square 11.16, p = 0.0480). When asked about their
state veterinary board guidance, there was a difference in perception
based on year of graduation, with more recent graduates reporting higher
agreement levels (chi square 30.04, p = 0.012). No differences were found based on legal status of marijuana in state of practice (Table 7).
TABLE 7

Table 7. Perception of state organizations’
provision of sufficient guidance regarding the use of CBD/marijuana in
animals to practice within the state or federal laws.

The next set of questions included two
questions about the perceived need for additional research, and six
questions assessing views of legal status of CBD and marijuana for
humans and animals. The results of these questions are summarized in
Tables 8, 9.
Differences in responses based on the legal status of recreational
marijuana in the participants’ state as well as date of graduation were
assessed with chi square tests and significant differences noted. When
asked about the need for additional research about the therapeutic use
and toxicity of hemp/CBD in dogs, whose who graduated more recently (chi
square 46.61, p < 0.001) as well as those practicing in states with legal marijuana (chi square 28.43, p
< 0.001) were more likely to agree that more research is needed.
There were no differences between groups for the question related to
additional research on the toxicity of marijuana in dogs.
TABLE 8

When asked if CBD should remain a
Schedule I drug as defined by the DEA, those who graduated more
recently report lower agreement levels (chi square 31.26, p = 0.008) as did those in states that had legalized marijuana (chi square 25.47, p
< 0.001). This same pattern was observed for the question on whether
marijuana should remain a Schedule I drug as defined by the DEA
(graduation year: chi square 47.21, p < 0.001; legalized marijuana status: chi square 27.12, p < 0.001) (Tables 8, 9).

Participants were asked to indicate their agreement level
with several statements regarding the legal status of hemp/CBD and
marijuana for both animals and humans. For each statement in Table 10,
there was a significant difference in stated level of agreement based
on graduation year and their state’s recreational marijuana laws, with
the exception of hemp/CBD products for animals (only significantly
different based on state’s recreational marijuana laws and not
graduation year) (Table 10).
TABLE 10

Lastly, participants were asked to
report their views on the potential benefits of marijuana and CBD
products for humans as well as their support in using CBD products for
animals from both a medical and ethical viewpoint. Most participants
agreed or strongly agreed that both marijuana and CBD products offer
benefits for humans and expressed support for use of CBD products for
animals. There was a significant difference based on graduation year,
with more recent graduates reporting higher agreement levels for the
question related to beneficial medical uses of marijuana products for
humans (chi square 25.95, p = 0.039). This difference was not
observed for the question on the beneficial medical uses of hemp/CBD
products for humans. There were also no differences based on year of
graduation or laws regarding recreational marijuana in participants’
state of practice, for questions related to the benefits of marijuana or
CBD/hemp products for animals (Tables 11, 12).
TABLE 11

Table 12. Participants’ reported level of support regarding the potential medical benefits of hemp/CBD/marijuana for dogs.

Discussion

The current study investigated veterinarians’ views and
experiences surrounding CBD products for dogs. A recent national study
assessing dog owners’ views and behaviors surrounding CBD product usage
for their dogs found that the most commonly reported use by owners of
CBD products was for pain relief, followed by reduction of inflammation,
and relief from anxiety (15). Pain relief was also the predominant use reported by owners in a 2016 study (16). Significant side effects were reported by <5% of owners, with most participants reported not observing any side effects (15). The significant side effect observed most frequently was lethargy yet even this effect was reported by only 3.9% of owners.

These findings assessing owners’ experiences were
validated in the current study. When veterinarians were asked what
specific conditions or diseases clients enquired about treating with CBD
products, the most common responses were pain management, anxiety and
seizures. These were also the top three topics listed by veterinarians
when asked for conditions about which they initiated CBD conversations
with their clients.

When asked about potential benefits of CBD products for a
variety of conditions, veterinarians reported observing (either
first-hand or through owner reports) that CBD was the most helpful for
chronic pain (reported as very helpful by 34% and somewhat helpful by
56% of veterinarians) followed by acute pain (very helpful, 23% and
somewhat helpful by 60% of veterinarians). CBD was also deemed to be
helpful for reducing anxiety and seizure frequency/severity by over 75%
of participants. The recent clinical trials on CBD for seizures (13) and pain management (14) support these veterinarians’ reported experiences.

A variety of CBD products are currently available for
purchase and participants reported the most familiarity with
biscuits/edibles, yet even for these, approximately 40% of veterinarians
reported having no experience. Interestingly, when owners were asked
what form of CBD they gave to their pets, the most common response was
capsules/pills and biscuits/edibles were a distant second (56.9%
compared to 29.3%).

In general, veterinarians appear reticent to initiate
conversations with clients about CBD, with 85% reporting they rarely or
never initiated such conversations. Few reported advising clients about
CBD (73% either never or rarely), and even fewer recommended (83% either
never or rarely) or prescribed (91% either never or rarely) CBD
products. The most common reason given for not advising about or
recommending CBD was not feeling knowledgeable enough. When asked why
they did not prescribe CBD products, the most common response was the
fact that it is illegal. It is interesting to note that participants who
work in states that have legalized recreational marijuana are more
likely to advise about and recommend CBD products, but even they do not
prescribe. More experienced veterinarians were more likely to recommend
and prescribe, but not to advise clients about CBD products. Yet, even
with these differences, most veterinarians in the current study, do not
advise about, recommend or prescribe CBD products.

Given the dearth of information available about CBD
products, it is not surprising that veterinarians do not feel
knowledgeable about the topic. To this point, a significant number of
participants reported not knowing much or anything about the therapeutic
(47%) or toxic (62%) effects of CBD products. It is also clear that the
participating veterinarians do not feel they are obtaining the
information they need from their state veterinary organizations or state
veterinary boards. When asked, <25% of respondents feel these
entities provide sufficient guidance for them to practice within the
state or federal law. Unfortunately, this lack of knowledge, and
therefore veterinarians’ confidence to initiate CBD related
conversations with their clients leaves pet owners with limited options
to obtain reliable information. It is alarming, but not surprising, that
CBD company websites are the source most consulted by pet owners for
CBD information (16).
This does not appear to be due to owners’ comfort levels; over 83% of
surveyed owners reported feeling comfortable talking to their vet about
CBD (15).
Yet, results from this current study show that only 45% of
veterinarians feel comfortable talking to clients about CBD. Even more
telling, only 62% of surveyed veterinarians feel comfortable talking to
other veterinarians about the topic.

Veterinarians in the current sample overwhelmingly
support further research into both the therapeutic use and toxicity of
CBD as well as the toxicity of marijuana. The majority do not feel that
CBD or marijuana should remain defined as Schedule I drugs by the DEA,
nor feel that these substances should remain illegal for use in animals
or humans. Taken together, these responses suggest that the veterinary
community is receptive to exploring the potential of cannabis products
and hungers for scientific data and clinical trials. These results are
similar to those of a recent study exploring attitudes toward marijuana
among medical students attending an allopathic medical school in
Colorado. These students supported marijuana legal reform (reclassifying
marijuana so that it is no longer a Schedule 1 substance), increased
research, and medicinal uses of marijuana, but voiced concerns about
potential risks and therefore, many expressed reluctance about
recommending marijuana to patients (17).
Another study of health care providers working in Washington, USA had
similar results whereby they reported the need for additional training
and education; and given their current knowledge level, did not feel
comfortable recommending medical cannabis (18). New York physicians (19) as well as a national sample of oncologists (20) share similar sentiments. In fact, these challenges are faced by physicians worldwide (21–23).
A limitation of this study is that only veterinarians who subscribe to
VIN (Veterinary Information Network) participated in this study.
Although VIN has a large member base, it does not represent all
veterinarians. It is possible that members of VIN may have different
views on this topic than all veterinarians; therefore, we must be
cautious to not extrapolate these results to the entire profession.
Nevertheless, the authors believe the results are informative on this
timely topic and the conclusion that more research is needed on the
potential benefits and potential toxicities of CBD products can be
generalized to the profession outside of VIN. The authors believe that
VIN membership is reflective of the overall population of veterinarians
in the U.S. VIN consists of 34, 917 members located in all 50 states.
The average age of VIN members is 45.5 years compared to the average age
of veterinarians in the U.S. of 44.1 years. Women constitute 69% of VIN
members and 65% of U.S. veterinarians (24).

The sales of natural pet supplements nearly doubled
between 2008 and 2014 with no signs of slowing down; U.S. retail sales
are projected to grow 3–5% annually (25).
The use of CBD products for animals is expected to increase as pet
owners look for alternative ways to care for their pets. And while pet
treats and food are regulated, pet supplements fall in a gray
unregulated zone because they are not classified as drugs or food. Given
the constantly changing laws and regulations on cannabis products as
well as the lack of scientific study, obtaining accurate information on
cannabis products is critically important. Certainly, current laws and
political forces make it challenging for veterinarians to gain the
information they need to feel confident discussing CBD with their
clients and offering sound advice, yet it is imperative for the
veterinary field to rise to this challenge. Given the positive feelings
expressed by veterinarians in this study, it is suggested that all those
affected by both the potential benefits as well as the risks, work
together for legislative change that would allow for the expansion of
knowledge needed to best capitalize on this potential medical tool for
companion animals.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in
the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be
construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Site Navigation

Get in touch

This product is not for use by or sale to persons under the age of 18. This product should be used only as directed on the label. It should not be used if you are pregnant or nursing. Consult with a physician before use if you have a serious medical condition or use prescription medications. A Doctor's advice should be sought before using this and any supplemental dietary product. All trademarks and copyrights are property of their respective owners and are not affiliated with nor do they endorse this product. These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. By using this site you agree to follow the Privacy Policy and all Terms & Conditions printed on this site. Void Where Prohibited By Law.